Infidelity in early M*A*S*H vs. latter episodes
G. Sample
over the years -- how both the cast and the plot lines became softer
and more compassionate. Or looked at another way, it's easy to see
that the show lost some of it's edge -- that biting sarcasm that was
closer to the original film version. One example of this that I was
noticing, the other day, was the spin given to infidelity.
Early on, cheating on one's spouse was done by most (all?) of the
married cast members -- it seemed almost a badge of honor and was
put in a sort of positive light.
As the run of the show continued and the cast changed, infidelity
became something to be avoided and ashamed of. In fact (and pardon me
for not knowing the names of these episodes), I recall 2 times in
particular when it was dealt with in quite a moralistic way -- when
Potter's son-in-law had his fling and the time that B.J. felt
attracted to a nurse who was going through a hard time.
At this point, most of the "fooling around" was the more "acceptable"
sort -- ie. done by single men and women -- esp. Hawkeye. The married
cast members were basically faithful to their spouses (or their
straying was something that had happened in the past, or "almost"
happened in the present).
How do you all feel about this element in M*A*S*H?
Judging from posts I'd read here, it seems that although there are
fans of both early *and* late in the show's run, that there seem to be
more people at this ng. who prefer those first few seasons. I'd guess
that most, therefore, would feel that the more moralistic turn of
writing, with respect to infidelity, was *not* something that they
cared to see in M*A*S*H -- possibly because there was nothing
especially funny about it.
At the risk of revealing myself to be somewhat old fashioned, I have
to admit that I preferred the latter shows. But I have a feeling I'm
in the minority.
Gail
Chadd VanZanten
"G. Sample" wrote:
[discussion about the softening and moralizing of MASH... suh-nip]
>How do you all feel about this element in M*A*S*H?
Well, I'm an old-school hard-liner. Not to say that I'm that old -- I
wasn't old enough to appreciate the early episodes of MASH when they were
originally run. I was still a kid when the series ended. However, now that
I've had a decade or so to consume and digest all the episodes of MASH
over and over, I have some very strong feelings about the superiority of
the older episodes over the newer ones.
I feel the changes in MASH (and not just the ones you've discussed)
represent a major sell-out. These changes were part of an apparent effort
to broaden the appeal of the series, and it was made at the expense of the
series' artistic integrity. Originally MASH was a mature, revolutionary TV
experiment with sharp writing and mature themes. The latter guard came
along and watered down, compromised and kiddie-proofed something that was
good the way it was. In other words, the product known as MASH, the
product that originally broke into the market, was sold off in order to
sell a different product under the same label.
The new product was adequate at best, shameful at worst.
>At the risk of revealing myself to be somewhat old fashioned, I have
>to admit that I preferred the latter shows. But I have a feeling I'm
>in the minority.
Ironic that you use the term "old-fashioned" when the version of MASH you
like came later. I know what you mean, tho, you have old-fashioned, strong
moral values. With all due respect, it's too bad your artistic values
don't seem to be as fully developed.
In any case, I don't depend on TV to teach me morals; I don't think good
TV needs to be didactic at all, other than to illuminate the viewer as to
the artist's view. I don't appreciate writing that renders a character who
is moral just for the sake of being moral -- what use is a moral or
righteous or courageous fictional character when it is not part of an
artistic vision? I appreciate writing that belongs to the world of art,
not the world of commerce. This may sound ideological, but I'm actually
quite realistic in my expectations. There is such thing as art on TV,
although it's rare. When writing, directing or acting on TV brings across
the vision of the writer, director or actor, that's art. When the
production of TV is purely commercial, it's not art, and it typically
stinks. Of course, artistic and commercial aims can intersect. Artful TV
can become successful and profitable, and, in more rare cases, successful
commercial TV can turn artful. Unfortunately, the prospect of success (or
the prospect of MORE success) seems to seduce TV producers into
sacrificing artistic integrity in favor of commercial integrity. I feel
that MASH underwent just such a sacrifice -- it became less and less
artful and more and more commercial, until, at the end, it was a wholly
pathetic panderfest.
Having said this, the "moral" MASH doesn't impress me, and the
sanctimonious MASH just pisses me off. Cleaning up the show,
de-emphasizing infidelity and drunkenness -- that's one thing. Straddling
the viewer's neck and tamping a moral message down his throat with a
broomstick is another thing altogether. Please understand that I don't
have anything against moral characters or storylines. I'm a moral person
-- honest, ethical, faithful to my wife. The problem is, in the latter
episodes of MASH, the moralistic characters and stories were used to
garner bigger audiences. I want to restate that: it was a ploy to make
more people watch the show so that they could get more money. It was
purely commercial, and it shows in the form of episodes that are weak,
monotonous, aimless and void of artistic merit. Okay, BJ cheats on his
wife... alright, alright and? Ohh, it's bad to cheat on your wife...
alright, alright AND? Ohh, he feels real bad for cheating... uh-huh,
uh-huh AND!? Yes, I see, it's bad to cheat on your wife, you said that
already.. is there anything else? Is anyone in there!?
For every later episode of MASH that sanctimoniously deals with moral
issues like drinking and infidelity, there is almost always an early
episode that deals with it better using comedy, irony and subtlety.
Personally, I prefer a TV show that openly depicts (and comes to grips
with) immorality in the setting of mature entertainment over a TV show
that unscrupulously uses (and ultimately never says anything original
about) morals as a tool to round up viewers. It's called pandering.
Ta.
Okay then,
Chadd
Kevan
> with) immorality in the setting of mature entertainment over a TV show
> that unscrupulously uses (and ultimately never says anything original
> about) morals as a tool to round up viewers. It's called pandering.
Well said. And thank you for expressing my thoughts, too.
Dolfan500
>
I liked it. When characters left, the new one coming in was new. Potter is so
different from Blake, BJ from Trap, Charles from Burns. It was this change
that helped the series succede. If BJ was a womanizer, if Charles had the hots
for Hot Lips, it would seem like "what's so special about these new people?" I
liked how the writes made everything work out- it made the show better. Like
when Radar left, having Klinger Company Clerk and promoed tp Sgt.
As for less infidelity, it was just the new characters who were not the same
as old ones.
Guy
Chadd VanZanten
I hate it when people reply to their own posts, but...
Chadd VanZanten wrote:
>With all due respect, it's too bad your artistic values
>don't seem to be as fully developed.
It was pointed out to me that I might have come on a little strong with this
remark. It was a mistake to say this. I want to apologize to Gail, in case she
interpreted it as an attack. No offense was intended to anyone. My bad.
And now back to your regularly scheduled rigamorole, donnybrook and
hurly-burly.
Okay then,
Chadd
G. Sample
it.
Sincerely,
Gail
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:10:18 -0600, Chadd VanZanten <ch...@tmbg.org>
wrote:
Finale...@yahoo.com
ch...@tmbg.org wrote:
>Unfortunately, the prospect of success (or
> the prospect of MORE success) seems to seduce TV producers into
> sacrificing artistic integrity in favor of commercial integrity. I
>feel
> that MASH underwent just such a sacrifice -- it became less and less
> artful and more and more commercial, until, at the end, it was a
>wholly pathetic panderfest.
We'll always walk fine lines between the hearts of commerce and art.
But, was it true pandering in the sense that the viewers were getting
what they really wanted all along?
What of the moroseness that began setting in without an equal or
greater balance of comic relief?
In those later seasons, everyone still knew from their not too distant
and unforgetable past that "war is hell." The horror and havoc on
lives throughout Vietnam was not to be easily escaped or forgotten.
They saw it first-hand, on the evening news, in the papers, and then on
film. How, then, could M*A*S*H's loyal viewers from the get-go find
escape in entertainment by more bombardment and repetition of those
same feelings of sadness and hopelessness without more light in this
dark *comedy*; a necessity -- the relentlessness of the human spirit --
a duel of war's structured insanity with humor's unstructured
insanity? Where's the positive catharsis?!
And when the fight in our lead dog gets beaten down in the final
episode, and the rest of the camp flip-flops in character -- was the
audience tuning in because that's the kind of material they were
looking for, or did they have hopeful anticipation of the show inching
back to when and how it first came bounding in?
> Personally, I prefer a TV show that openly depicts (and comes to grips
> with) immorality in the setting of mature entertainment over a TV
>show
> that unscrupulously uses (and ultimately never says anything original
> about) morals as a tool to round up viewers. It's called pandering.
When the artists, (using the term loosely for our latter picture
painters), began to slap on the blatant, in-your-face, moral views and
taped on their own personal twist to subjects already spun, I don't see
that just exclusively as pander and a sign of the times, but as a lack
of story material, as well as sugar-coated propaganda to some extent.
They still have merit and entertainment value -- just formulated by
different eyes that ventured steps off the original pages.
B. Kelly
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
boder...@webtv.net
spouses.The Trapper years were great!
Jake Mabe
John as a character was much less interesting than BJ Hunnicut, and that the
Hawk/BJ/Potter relationship much much more satisfying than the
Hawk/Trapper/Blake troika, as much as I dearly love Henry Blake as a character.
Now, having said that, I love the early episodes of the series as well,
especially "Sometimes You Hear the Bullet." That was really a landmark
episode. And, like some of the others, I grew somewhat uncomfortable with the
show's growing political/moral tone of the series as the years went by.
However, the show never failed to cause me to examine my own morals and
political positions, and never failed to entertain.
There may be some truth to the notion that M*A*S*H "sold out" near the end of
the run. I remember reading an article years ago saying that Alda and the
writers had decided to incorporate more of his feminist views into the show, as
well as more morality studies, so that the program could win over a large
number of female viewers when the show went up against "Monday Night Football"
in its later seasons.
Still, even if the program did "sell out," it was and is still the best program
ever to air on American television. I, for one, was not comfortable with some
of the lowbrow humor of the earlier episodes...maybe that reveals more of my
personality than anything, and if so is a biased perspective.
But I take M*A*S*H has a whole and, if we look at it honestly, can find weak
episodes throughout the 11 seasons the show was on the air, both the early
years and in the later seasons. One thing that we can say about M*A*S*H is
that it did not burn itself out and go into an eventual decline like so many
other shows ( for example, All In the Family). It went out on top while high
quality episodes were still being produced, and, if it did get a bit to
sentimental in the last years, well, I guess there are worse things that could
have happened.
Best Wishes,
Jake
JayZ755
>But, was it true pandering in the sense that the viewers were getting
>what they really wanted all along?
>
What the viewer wants, or thinks they want, isn't necessarily what the viewer
needs.
Jay
This space intentionally left blank.
JayZ755
>episodes throughout the 11 seasons the show was on the air, both the early
>years and in the later seasons. One thing that we can say about M*A*S*H is
>that it did not burn itself out and go into an eventual decline like so many
>other shows ( for example, All In the Family). It went out on top while high
>quality episodes were still being produced, and, if it did get a bit to
>sentimental in the last years, well, I guess there are worse things that
>could
>have happened.
>
>Best Wishes,
>
>Jake
>
We all have our own opinions, but there are more than a few of us that do feel
that the show entered into a decline phase. I'd put it sometime during Season
7 (when the decline began) myself, but that's just me.
boder...@webtv.net
why on earth you'd prefer his character to the lively and million laughs
Trapper John (Wayne Rogers) is clean past me with my honor student past.
Jake Mabe
>why on earth you'd prefer his character to the lively and million laughs
>Trapper John (Wayne Rogers) is clean past me with my honor student past.
As I mentioned in my original post, I certainly wasn't comfortable with what
you so eloquently describe as the "bleeding heart" attitude of the later
episodes.
And, although I'm not related to Mike Farrell and don't even particularly like
Mr. Farrell and especially don't agree with him politically, I thought that his
*character*, B.J., was much more interesting than Trapper John, who
unfortunately often came across to me as a bit one dementional. Which is not
to say that I didn't like Trapper John. I certainly did and, like you, enjoyed
what you describe as the "lively" man of a "million laughs."
I just always thought that, for whatever reason (probably because he was on the
program for 8 years and thus had more time to develop as a character), B.J. was
much more defined than, unfortunately, what we got to see of Trapper John.
B.J. may have been a bleeding heart and whatever else you want to call him, but
in all the years I've watched the program, I've never thought him a "bore."
This guy with an honor student past just can't figure out why I fellow
individual with an honor student past was bored with BJ!
Seriously, thanks for the note. The one great thing I like about reading the
MA*S*H newsgroup as opposed to some others is that it is always intriguing and
thought provoking.
The earlier poster who commented that they thought the show began to decline in
the Seventh Season gave me food for thought. I may not agree, but it certainly
gives me something to ponder while I continue to watch the series in reruns.
Best Wishes,
Jake
col_m...@my-deja.com
jake...@aol.comnospam (Jake Mabe) wrote:
>This guy with an honor student past just can't figure out why I fellow
>individual with an honor student past was bored with BJ!
Schnikees, if you can regurgitate material, you can be one.
> B.J. may have been a bleeding heart and whatever else you want to
>call him, but in all the years I've watched the program, I've never
>thought him a "bore."
>
I second the comment: I never found him to be boring. He was a nice
guy and left you wondering HOW he could be so damn nice! But what else
is so interesting about the near-perfect nice guy image except
the "how" of sustaining it? Not saying I don't like it either, just
that even though you got to see the characters more in-depth... it was
usually predictable in what would happen once the character and
situation were presented. It was WWJD with a B before the J!
col_m...@my-deja.com
jay...@aol.comspamaway (JayZ755) wrote:
> >We'll always walk fine lines between the hearts of commerce and art.
> >But, was it true pandering in the sense that the viewers were getting
> >what they really wanted all along?
> >
>
> What the viewer wants, or thinks they want, isn't necessarily what
>the viewer needs.
Yeah, we know wants aren't needs, so what are you thinking but not
saying?
The viewer (to be one) only "needs" entertainment to sit their butts
down and watch. They say what they "want" when they watch, or they
don't watch.
I took it as it's not "true pandering" to viewers watching the later
eps. as they 1st aired who DID appreciate the older shows more for
their content. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Or, I could be lost...
Jake Mabe
>usually predictable in what would happen once the character and
>situation were presented. It was WWJD with a B before the J!
You'll get no arguments from me here. The thing that I liked about BJ was that
we got to hear more about his family, his home life, etc. I particularly love
the episode where he falls for the nurse who is having problems. Trapper,
unfortunately, was just not on the program long enough to "flesh out" his
character.
But, yes, I agree that the characters, once given a situation, usually acted in
predictable fashion. That, in fact, may be the strongest evidence for the
earlier argument that the program "sold out."
Best,
Jake
SaintMaryM
>unfortunately often came across to me as a bit one dementional. Which is not
>to say that I didn't like Trapper John. I certainly did and, like you,
>enjoyed
>what you describe as the "lively" man of a "million laughs."
>
I personally liked both characters (I always thought it would be interesting
for them to have been in the MASH at the same time, cuz I strongly suspect they
wouldn't have liked each other, would've made for some nice conflict).
But I did get fed up with the Trapper John character, especially in episodes
where he and Hawk would blackmail Frank by threatening to tell his wife about
his affair with Margaret. I actually heard myself snapping at the TV screen
(addressing Trapper), "Hey, pot, you're black."
I always wondered why Frank never turned that little tactic around on Trapper
and threatened to write a few letter's to *his* wife....
Shannon
George Hiebert
SaintMaryM <saint...@aol.com> wrote in message
> I personally liked both characters (I always thought it would be
interesting
> for them to have been in the MASH at the same time, cuz I strongly suspect
they
> wouldn't have liked each other, would've made for some nice conflict).
> But I did get fed up with the Trapper John character, especially in
episodes
> where he and Hawk would blackmail Frank by threatening to tell his wife
about
> his affair with Margaret. I actually heard myself snapping at the TV
screen
> (addressing Trapper), "Hey, pot, you're black."
A scene with Trap and Beej squaring off would have been great. But I feel
they would have probably been buds. Both hated the war, both liked drinking.
But who would Hawk hang with if both Trap and Beej were there. Considering
his love of nurse chasing I think Trap. Maybe BJ would have been out in the
cold somewhat, just an occassional poker participant but not a close friend.
> I always wondered why Frank never turned that little tactic around on
Trapper
> and threatened to write a few letter's to *his* wife....
Or a letter to Henry's wife for that matter.
Frank knew it would backfire, they'ld only do the same to him.
JayZ755
>where he and Hawk would blackmail Frank by threatening to tell his wife about
>his affair with Margaret. I actually heard myself snapping at the TV screen
>(addressing Trapper), "Hey, pot, you're black."
>
>I always wondered why Frank never turned that little tactic around on Trapper
>and threatened to write a few letter's to *his* wife....
>
>Shannon
>
Trapper didn't necessarily have affairs so much as a series of one night
stands. Maybe Trapper's wife already knew he did that sort of stuff. That was
kind of my take on the character - that he was kind of that way in civilian
life, as well. Of the married characters, he probably talked about his spouse
the least, which may tell you something about the marriage.
Paul Gadzikowski
> Trapper didn't necessarily have affairs so much as a series of one night
> stands. Maybe Trapper's wife already knew he did that sort of stuff. That was
> kind of my take on the character - that he was kind of that way in civilian
> life, as well. Of the married characters, he probably talked about his spouse
> the least, which may tell you something about the marriage.
There's an early episode in which Trapper John says he sends his poker
winnings home to his wife, "for her private detective fund."
"What," Hawkeye asks, "she's having you followed over here?"
"No, it's for when I get home. Starting the second night."
Then in "Mad Dogs and Servicemen" Trapper John observes, "My wife says I'm
easy to talk to. Whenever we're talking."
These may or may not be just wiseass remarks, as there is enough respect
between Trapper John and his wife that when he wants to adopt Kim he writes
her with at least reasonable expectation that she'll agree. On the other
hand, the only letter home from Trapper John to which we're privy isn't
written to her but to one of his daughters.
--
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman
"Fifty or so chickens' lives will be spared."
Kevan
it's grammatically correct. You seem to like nothing about MASH; perhaps you
should form your own MASH-Haters newsgroup.
<boder...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20651-39...@storefull-628.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
George Hiebert
Paul Gadzikowski <scar...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:39BCADF3...@iglou.com...
And to add to the list, in the pilot, after reading a letter from home Trap
says something like. "Bad news from home, my wife still loves me." Seems
Trap was the type who liked to make light-hearted jabs about his marriage.
Brad Filippone
: Jake, BJ was a bleeding heart bore.Unless you're related to Mike Farrel
: why on earth you'd prefer his character to the lively and million laughs
: Trapper John (Wayne Rogers) is clean past me with my honor student past.
Thank you so much for being offensive to all of us who happen to have
views differing from yours.
The Other Brad
Brad Filippone
: And to add to the list, in the pilot, after reading a letter from home Trap
: says something like. "Bad news from home, my wife still loves me." Seems
: Trap was the type who liked to make light-hearted jabs about his marriage.
A possible forerunner of the Norm/Vera relationship on "Cheers" (my second
favorite show).
The Other Brad
Chadd VanZanten
>We'll always walk fine lines between the hearts of commerce and art.
I don't think this was true with MASH -- the earlier episodes are just about
as close to art as you can get with a network TV series, and the later
episodes were drippy commercial couch fodder. Perhaps during the transition
from solid comedy writing to a commercial product there was a time when the
series was directly between artful and completely commercial, but it wasn't
a balancing act -- it was just the transition to being completely sold out.
>But, was it true pandering in the sense that the viewers were getting
>what they really wanted all along?
Well, this is a good question. At the risk of sounding elitist, if I had
been an 25-35 year-old when MASH was first running, I'm fairly sure I would
have soured as a loyal viewer. Sure, they'd pick up 10 new, less
discriminating viewers for each person like me who stopped watching, but
still. Something very substantial, almost quantifiable was lost from the
show.
As for giving people what they want -- there's nothing so special about
that. People want cheap, crappy food sometimes, and McDonalds provides that
to people on a daily basis. That's fine, that's the essence of
commerciality. If a five star restaurant started selling Quarter Pounders to
get more customers, I guess people would ask the same question: "Is it
pandering, or is Quarter Pounders what people wanted all along?"
>What of the moroseness that began setting in without an equal or
>greater balance of comic relief?
Hmm, not sure where you're going with this. However, if the show had taken a
serious turn, I would have been okay with that. The problem is that it
didn't really take a serious turn. It took a mawkish turn. And in the early
episodes, the comedy wasn't comedy relief, the comedy was wielded like a
weapon, it was central to show. It wasn't just for laughs, it had a purpose,
and the purpose was almost always accomplished.
Example of use of humor between old eps and new eps: Col. Flagg. Flagg's
original appearances were funnier than his later ones, for one thing, but
that's a minor point. The main thing is that Col. Flagg has a real purpose
in the original episodes. When Col. Flagg first comes on the scene, you're
drawn to his character because he's so frustratingly funny, and it's great
when Trapper and Hawkeye hose him down with his own subterfuge. But, later
(hopefully), you think, "Jeeeeeze, I bet there are people in the military
who are like that, what would it be like to really confront a Col. Flagg?"
Then you're a little sobered. In the later episodes, Col. Flagg came around
a couple times, but by that time he really was just for comic relief. The
character was just a shadow of what the early writers had made him -- in
fact, in the later episodes they try to get payoff laughs by simply calling
up stuff that Flagg had done in the early episodes. "Hey Flagg, remember the
time you broke your own arm? Ha ha." In the later episodes, the writers try
to make the same point that Flagg originally made, that there is cruelty and
insanity and deadly contradiction in any military, but instead of doing it
so subtley and brilliantly as the early writers had done with various funny
characters, the later writers try to knock you over the head by conjuring up
these melodramatic meanies. In the end, there's nothing original said,
there's not much in the way of good performance, and it just lays there like
a dead fish.
In other words, Col. Flagg may appear to be just another funny character,
but in the early episodes he is wielded deftly to make you laugh and make
you think. Flagg is very funny in some very basic, easy ways (the ridiculous
bravado, the deadpan delivery of absurd military lingo), but there's also a
complexity to him that conveys the message that, yeah, you can laugh at him,
but you sure as hell wouldn't want to have to cross his path.
The same goes with some of the other, more bureaucratic personnel depicted
in the early episodes -- Like Hamilton Steele, the other generals, and that
blonde captain who shows up sometimes ("Just write the word 'pizza' where it
says, 'machinegun.'"). They have all these regulations and forms and
nomenclature, and it's very easy to get a laugh out of that sort of stuff.
However, it's also sort of menacing that a guy like Hamilton Steele might be
out there commanding troops, starting each ceremony or proceeding with "a
number."
In the later episodes, they try to bring across the same ideas, but there's
something played about it. In the first place, so much of what they tried to
say in the later seasons had already been said, and said really well. I
don't know if there simply wasn't anything original left to be said, or if
the later writers just couldn't cook up anything, but so much of the later
eps are just rehashed "serious" takes on older issues. Second, the later
writers were so heavy handed, you almost want to disagree out of principle.
You also mentioned that the series was, or was meant to be, a dark comedy.
The movie definitely was a dark comedy, and the TV series carried some of
that thru, though I think it was meant to be less dark. The later episodes
were not dark comedy. The later episodes tried to have drama and comedy, but
the two were so compartmentalized that they rarely overlapped. There would
be some big evil character stalking around the camp in one scene, then
there'd be a pillow fight. That's not dark comedy.
>They still have merit and entertainment value -- just formulated by
>different eyes that ventured steps off the original pages.
Well, that's one way of putting it. I would say the "different eyes" were
focused too sharply on commercial success.
Okay then,
Chadd
Chadd VanZanten
>But I did get fed up with the Trapper John character, especially in episodes
>where he and Hawk would blackmail Frank by threatening to tell his wife about
>his affair with Margaret. I actually heard myself snapping at the TV screen
>(addressing Trapper), "Hey, pot, you're black."
There was some inconsistent treatment between the various characters on the issue
of infidelity, but I wanted to say a couple things. First, it was usually Hawkeye
who attacked Burns on this point. I don't remember Trapper doing this much, unless
it was in tacit complicity with Hawkeye. In fact, at the moment, I can't think of
any episodes in which Trapper independently threatens Burns with anything like
that. I'd be interested to know if there are any such instances that I'm
forgetting...
Second and more importantly, the reason this inconsistency works with Burns is
because he was a hypocrite first, adulterer second. He would pontificate about
fidelity and moral values in public while "hiding" his affair with Margaret. Burns
constantly chided and remonstrated others for their dalliances and yet he pursued
his affair with Margaret with gusto. He also made it known on at least two
occasions that his marriage was about money, not love (something about the stocks
and the house being in her name and that he didn't want to be taken out of her
father's will). It was always the hypocrisy that Hawkeye and the others attacked,
not necessarily the infidelity.
By contrast, Blake's and Trapper's affairs were somewhat more open and much less
shameful. They would be hiding their affairs from their wives, and that is
admittedly a low thing to do, but there was never the sneaky quotient associated
with Burns and Margaret ("Meet you behind the cesspool."). Also, I question how
often Blake and Trapper were depicted as fooling around. It's evident that they did
in some episodes, especially Blake, who it seems is actually shacked up with a
nurse at times. But, especially in Trapper's case, it's at least understated. For
Trapper, I'd interpret infidelity as expressions of loneliness, impulsiveness,
comeraderie and passion. Burns' affair was a deliberate, sustained, sneaky and
hypocritical expression of having your cake and eating it, too. Not trying to
justify adultery, but there are degrees of being unfaithful.
>I always wondered why Frank never turned that little tactic around on Trapper
>and threatened to write a few letter's to *his* wife...
This would never do for Burns, because he always had more to lose.
Okay then,
Chadd
George Hiebert
have said something very similar. Thanks for the effort.
Chadd VanZanten <ch...@tmbg.org> wrote in message
news:39BE9912...@tmbg.org...
anec...@my-deja.com
ch...@tmbg.org wrote:
> Finale...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >We'll always walk fine lines between the hearts of commerce and art.
>
> I don't think this was true with MASH -- the earlier episodes are
>just about as close to art as you can get with a network TV series,
>and the later episodes were drippy commercial couch fodder.
I don't fully discount that. However, there is that debatable
percentage of both commerciality and art, regardless. And ironically,
determining it objectively is tricky. Surely the later producers would
have some defensive comments regarding their work, their own unique
visions, and the choices they made accordingly.
>Perhaps during the transition
> from solid comedy writing to a commercial product there was a time
>when the series was directly between artful and completely commercial,
>but it wasn't a balancing act -- it was just the transition to being
>completely sold out.
Completely is a powerful word. Wasn't the series given the chance out
of potential salability (secure that audience!)based upon the movie's
shadow of success?
This isn't something so simple as black and white; positive and
negative. Here, you have traces of both in each.
> >But, was it true pandering in the sense that the viewers were getting
> >what they really wanted all along?
>
> Well, this is a good question. At the risk of sounding elitist, if I
had
> been an 25-35 year-old when MASH was first running, I'm fairly sure I
would
> have soured as a loyal viewer. Sure, they'd pick up 10 new, less
> discriminating viewers for each person like me who stopped watching,
>but still. Something very substantial, almost quantifiable was lost
>from the show.
I'm not disagreeing there. I've heard the side of watching from the
1st season onward from my parents. And they did, indeed, turn M*A*S*H
off and miss episodes, heaven forbid.
> >What of the moroseness that began setting in without an equal or
> >greater balance of comic relief?
>
> Hmm, not sure where you're going with this. However, if the show had
>taken a serious turn, I would have been okay with that. The problem is
>that it didn't really take a serious turn. It took a mawkish turn.
It would be seasons 10/11 I'm thinking of with digression to more heavy
drama and playing on the tragedy of Vietnam. Everyone was bummed then
by just having been through almost a decade of war and they started
beating on the negative aspects more heavily. It was like a "here we
go again" type of thing. A bit of overkil.
> Example of use of humor between old eps and new eps: Col. Flagg.
>Flagg's original appearances were funnier than his later ones, for one
>thing, but that's a minor point. The main thing is that Col. Flagg has
>a real purpose in the original episodes.
Yep, sterotypical, gungho military type personifying the whole "Central
Intelligence Agency, now there's a contradiction in terms!" But yes, I
do agree, Flagg as a foil later on became used in much the same sense
as Frank did -- bring 'im in, get the cheap laugh, throw 'im away --
simple as that. Sacrificing some characters for others' evolutional
purposes?
Chadd VanZanten
>> -- it was just the transition to being
>>completely sold out.
>Completely is a powerful word. Wasn't the series given the chance out
>of potential salability (secure that audience!)based upon the movie's
>shadow of success?
That's a good point, yeah. I'm letting my superlatives show. However, when I
say "completely sold out," I almost really mean completely, because in my
experience, the show gets more and more sappy (that's subjective, a'course)
even as it gets more and more successful (objective). The terminus of MASH
is the Farewell, Goodbye, Amen. In my subjective view it is the sappiest of
all, and it was, objectively, the most successful MASH program. The
sappiness curve and the commercial curve are in complete harmony. The course
that is plotted the progressive, incremental wholesale sell-out, until, at
the very end, any attempt at or hint of faithful, honest craft were missing,
but meanwhile EVERYone is watching -- 8-year-olds and 80-year-olds, side by
side. By trading out edgy, dark or adult elements in favor of motherhood
issues and lightweight dramatic conventions, they managed to dupe everyone
into watching that last episode.
>This isn't something so simple as black and white; positive and
>negative. Here, you have traces of both in each.
I've always admitted that it wasn't a sudden death. It's not as if every
episode after a certain point is a complete disaster. It's a slow, downward
spiral, and there are traces of integrity in the later episodes just as
there is contrived stuff in the early episodes. For example, I like every
performance given by Mako, even though his bigger roles are way deep into
the sanctimonious years. I like a lot of Ogden-Steirs' stuff, too. But there
is a progression and a noticeable trend toward the overdramatic, heavy
handed and you know the rest.
>>Example of use of humor between old eps and new eps: Col. Flagg.
>Yep, sterotypical, gungho military type personifying the whole "Central
>Intelligence Agency, now there's a contradiction in terms!" But yes, I
>do agree, Flagg as a foil later on became used in much the same sense
>as Frank did -- bring 'im in, get the cheap laugh, throw 'im away --
>simple as that. Sacrificing some characters for others' evolutional
>purposes?
I dunno. I feel like that would be too easy an excuse. I see it as the later
writers trying to play olds songs on new instruments they made themselves.
They had Flagg and others laying around the shop, but they didn't know how
to play them properly. So, they cobbled together their own instruments and
it turned out they couldn't play those very well, either. And they just used
the old instruments to make funny noises every now and then, the way I used
to do with my sister's flute.
Bye.
Okay then,
Chadd
Jake Mabe
>issues and lightweight dramatic conventions, they managed to dupe everyone
>into watching that last episode.
I certainly did not feel "duped" after watching "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen"
and definitely wasn't "duped" into watching it, having watched the program for
several years prior to the final episode. I think that final program offered
some interesting perspective on various topics, such as Pierce's chillingly
portrayed nervous breakdown, Winchester's experience with the Chinese POWs, and
the loss of Mulcahy's hearing, which put his ministry and charity work with the
orphans in jeopardy.
While I agree that the show gradually ventured towards a decidedly feminist
leaning, thanks probably to both Alda's convictions and the fact that CBS
counterprogrammed the show against "Monday Night Football," I do not think that
all of the topics explored in the later years can in one grand scoop be totally
dismissed as "motherhood issues" or utilizing "lightweight dramatic
conventions" to make it's points.
I don't disagree that some of this didn't indeed take place, but do not feel
that the point of the later episodes can totally be dismissed in such a manner.
I've had a chance to rewatch the final episode several times during the 17
years since the program aired. To me it's still a powerful piece of
television, and one of the most successful final episodes of a program in the
history of television...far surpassing in my mind the final episodes of
"Cheers," "Seinfeld," and some of the other programs to come down the pike
since M*A*S*H left the airwaves.
Perhaps the only more satisfying final ending to a television program that I
can think of other than the M*A*S*H finale was the ending to "The Fugitive."
That two part episode resolved that series to, in my mind, a totally fitting
conclusion.
>at
>the very end, any attempt at or hint of faithful, honest craft were missing
I totally disagree. I'm sure that Alda and Metcalf and the other producers
were totally "faithful and honest" in the message that they were trying to
present. I didn't always agree with that message, but I hardly think that it
was a total sell-out. The topics dealt with in the later episodes were still
highly controversial and thought provoking. Had the program suddenly shifted
towards an "Ozzie and Harriet" program that offended no one and refused to
tackle controversial subjects in order to appeal to the widest majority of
viewers, then, yes, I think that would indeed warrent the label of a total
"sell out."
As it stands, I think the notion of whether the program ultimately sold out is
a matter of perspective.
Regards,
Jake
anec...@my-deja.com
> >Flagg as a foil later on became used in much the same sense
> >as Frank did -- bring 'im in, get the cheap laugh, throw 'im away --
> >simple as that. Sacrificing some characters for others' evolutional
> >purposes?
>
> I dunno. I feel like that would be too easy an excuse. I see it as
the later
> writers trying to play olds songs on new instruments they made
themselves.
> They had Flagg and others laying around the shop, but they didn't
know how
> to play them properly. So, they cobbled together their own
instruments and
> it turned out they couldn't play those very well, either. And they
just used
> the old instruments to make funny noises every now and then, the way
I used
> to do with my sister's flute.
>
> Bye.
Hi!
I like that last bit of yours. I just see the actors as the musicians.
Writers compose variations on the theme. Skilled musicians play
whatever's placed in front of them in the conductor's tempo.
Little black dots on a page -- inconsequential, 'til chosen to be added
to the repertoire.
For Burns and Flagg, were the writers at a loss for words on what to do
with them? I believe so. Margaret gets married, and where does that
leave Frank? Well, in retrospect, marrying off Margaret would be to
Frank, what Trapper or B.J.'s loss of humor could have been to
Hawkeye. Each were central ingredients to the functioning character
relationships from the start. Then, all of a sudden, there was this
tremendous amount of freedom on what they could do with Burns -- never
the case before to such an extent. The worry of "oh my God! What the
heck do we do now?" had to be crossing everyone's minds. Burns had
always been a tricky, borderline all-out insanity, kind of guy. When
he lost his security blanket, so did the writers, who then composed
stable sketches of instability, leary of roads not taken. The
returning guest, Flagg, got the variation of his past as you were
saying, and again, like Burns, was not going too progressively forward
as the creative staff was likewise attempting to do with the rest of
the leads.